>But that's the *ENTIRE POINT* of UF! It was created precisely to
>combine things because they'd be cool.

And that's why UF is cool. It's fun and always interesting to read, and the characters have valid emotional lives, believable and the kind the reader can relate to; a true credit to the writers.

However...

>I don't like 'rules based' SF, so I don't write it.
>
>I find stories that explain how and why things exist tiresome. Who
>cares, they exist, if the connection isn't important to the story -
>shut up and get on with the story. I don't care how the Dantrovians
>evolved, they exist *fiat* and that's all that matters.

...sort of.

I'm going to have to disagree here. We don't have to know the entire history of the Dantrovian species, or how they evolved into a single world culture, or anything else.

But...

In doing something on a more serious level than UF or, say, WL, requires more than just "They Exist". There needs to be a "bible", so to speak, a history and reference that explains how things came to be, how people became like they are. Odds are, the reader/viewer/whatever won't see most of it. But in knowing the backstory, the universe that the story takes place in becomes more believable. Things don't just happen; there's a rhyme and a reason. Knowing where these things come from, knowing why they happened, is key to building an internally consistent and credible universe, and that's the secret to believability.

Example: the Alien films. In the first (and, IMHO, best) film, the caustic alien blood burns through three or four decks worth of floor/ceiling. In the fourth film, it burns a guy's face. Somewhat. It's a minor nit, but it's something that shows how horribly those rules are applied, and often thrown out the window.

I'm a longtime Highlander fan. I love the first movie. I love the series (well, except for 12 out of 13 episodes of the sixth season, and the last two episodes of the fifth season). But the producers and writers would repeatedly ignore continuity; each film takes place in its own continuity, and the series takes place in a separate continuity (although one related to the series, in the same way that the series is related to the first film). Rules are ignored, and it makes it very easy to get torn out of the story with a response of "but... that's not how it happened" or "That couldn't have happened" or something to that effect.

It's very easy for the fiat-method to go horribly wrong. I've seen it result in sometimes halfway-decent stories that end badly, thus ruining the whole story, because of those kinds of inconsistencies.

Fiat-based stories CAN work. They CAN be fun. UF is a prime example. But it's a lot harder to get engaged in something that lacks logic or consistency.

-- Sean --

http://www.thebrokenlink.org The Broken Link 4.0 is live!
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein
"It's not easy being green." -- Kermit the Frog